Also see later article here: https://veaterecosan.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/portishead-police-shooting-unanswered.html
So another "stop and shoot" operation by specialist British police. This time it occurred on the Portishead turn-off from the M5 on the NW outskirts of Bristol at about 9.30 am on the morning of the 27th of September, 2017. In some ways it closely resembles the shooting in January of a man driving an Audi car on the M62 between Huddersfield and Manchester. (See: https://veaterecosan.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/police-shoot-to-kill-again-fifth-fatal.html)
In both cases the driver was shot dead inside his car, without it would appear the opportunity to surrender to police and be arrested, the only difference being the direction of firing from the rear and front respectively.
In both instances the forced stop took place in similar - apparently well-rehearsed manner as the car left the motorway. In both cases high powered unmarked police vehicles containing specially trained-to-kill firearms officers, but it is not altogether clear for which police force or agency they work.
Secrecy surrounds them befitting their role I suppose. It does mean, we have to trust their integrity working only in the public interest, including using their weapons only if they believe they or others are in imminent danger.
We the the public have to rely wholly on the independence and thoroughness of the IPCC to answer these questions when as normally occurs the incident is reported to it. One might even surmise that the statement to the press that the IPCC has been called in, is used to excuse the lack of crucial information and camouflage and procrastinator.
There does however appear to be doubts raised over both these issues when the evidence - such as it is is in the form of press reports and photographs - is examined, as perhaps we shall see.
ARVcop @ARVcop
Clearly these issues are of fundamental importance not only to the unfortunate victim and their family members but also to the wider society, for we appear to be sliding into a different sort of policing to that we have been used to and largely without any form of public debate.
Using the very questionable threat of fundamentalist terrorism, the Home Office and Police hierarchy, or elements within them, appear to be committed to both arming the police and extending the sort of deadly approach demonstrated yet again in Bristol.
As concerned citizens we are justified in asking if either the policy or practice of this extreme and foreign method of policing, is either necessary or justified?
In both of the cases mentioned above (and in previous ones) the justification used was that evidence had been received that the target was carrying a gun.
No one wants such a situation to be allowed, but there is clearly a big difference between a person carrying a gun or having one in his car, to a genuine threat to armed officers wishing to arrest them.
In both the cases referred to, it appears highly unlikely any opportunity to surrender peacefully was afforded before lethal shooting commenced.
Is the public satisfied with this approach?
What if there is a case of mistaken identity of either car or driver? What if the intelligence is faulty or was made with malice? What if the firearm was actually a toy or the victim only carried it for self defence because of threats from others? What if the police themselves are corrupt or are acting from personal motives or prejudice?
And then there is the slippery slope argument of how can we be sure it will only be applied to desperate criminals when it becomes the modus operandi?
Abundant evidence is there to see in America and elsewhere, that when shooting becomes the normal reflex of officers, quite innocent people die and their killers in uniform are almost always protected from the sort of consequence that murder usually involves.Thus the whole population is put at risk and the relationship between governed and government changes fundamentally. Is that what our government wants?
Most media outlets reported the incident similarly as follows:
A man has died in a "police shooting" on the A369 in Portishead, near Bristol.
Witnesses described seeing a car being stopped by police at 9.30am and officers shoot into the vehicle a number of times.
Frazer Phillips, from Bristol, wrote on the Hello Portishead Facebook page: "I was right next to it when it happened and heard about 4-5 shots."
David Ellison told BBC Radio Bristol: "As I came out of Portishead to join the motorway I got stopped. Ahead of me were police in the road.
"I saw them back off from a car and then they surrounded it. They maybe shot with handguns five, six, maybe 10 times.
"Then they dragged a man from the car to resuscitate him."
On the same page, Mark De Lancey added: "I got up on the roundabout as the police were smashing the guys windows and dragging him out. God knows what was happening!"
None of the reports give any indication of why this extreme operation was carried out and by whom or why it was felt necessary to spray the car and driver with live ammunition without it seems giving the driver an opportunity to dispose of his weapon (if he had one) or peacefully surrendering, by getting out of the vehicle and following the usual instructions to lie prone on the ground to be safely arrested.
I was not there. I do not know the people involved or the background to the case, so it may seem presumption to comment or to come to any definite conclusions, but at least we can look at the available evidence in shaping an initial view.
It would be helpful to know how many officers were involved in the operation and who they actually work for. The possibility exists that they are not employed by any constabulary or function in units outside the conventional command structure - perhaps the anti-terrorist squad, MI5, the SAS or even private or foreign contractors.
Nor do we know why it was so important to shoot this individual dead. It is quite feasible for firearms to be planted or used as cover for other more sinister reasons.
It would be helpful to know how many officers were involved in the operation and who they actually work for. The possibility exists that they are not employed by any constabulary or function in units outside the conventional command structure - perhaps the anti-terrorist squad, MI5, the SAS or even private or foreign contractors.
Nor do we know why it was so important to shoot this individual dead. It is quite feasible for firearms to be planted or used as cover for other more sinister reasons.
Why was this car and driver targeted so aggressively?
The Avon and Somerset Police put out a statement as follows:
"Earlier this morning we received calls from concerned members of the public travelling on the M5 who reported they had seen a man in a car with a handgun. The vehicle left the motorway at junction 19 and officers stopped the car on the A369 known as the Portbury Hundred. Shots were subsequently fired in an incident involving police firearms and a man has died." Https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/newsroom/2017/09/statement-regarding-the-portbury-hundred-incident/update-on-the-incident-on-the-portbury-hundred
It has to be said this raises more questions than it answers.
So the information came from memberS of the public that morning i.e. some time before 9.30. Given the time it would take to get armed personnel on scene and a complicated operation planned, we would have to assume this was several hours before. It raises some very difficult issues.
The statement does not indicate where on the M5 the gun was spotted but given the time required mentioned above, why had the driver not reached his destination? Further given that it must have been dark at the time, how did the members of the public actually see the gun? Are we to believe he was making a show of it in a well lit area and on several occasions?
Then again would the police initiate a full blown operation to kill on just the possibly faulty observation of a member of the public? Very unlikely I would say, not to mention the manner in which they attacked the car.
The local constabulary has not indicated if it was their armed officers that carried out the shooting. I would hazard a guess that it was not and that the armed officers came from further afield. A registration plate of one of the cars certainly points to a Met vehicle. If it was a Metropolitan Police operation it certainly begs the question why and what they were doing so far from home if the complaint had come in just that morning from somewhere on the M5, which of course runs from Birmingham to Exeter?
A witness quoted by local newspaper stated there were THREE unmarked police cars and a marked vehicle in front. Do we assume then, as in the earlier M62 incident referred to, the shooters all piled into this third vehicle, to be off and away without a trace?
This seems much more the routine of assassins than bona fide constables doesn't it? It is possible that that is what they were, though working under the protection of the Crown!
This seems much more the routine of assassins than bona fide constables doesn't it? It is possible that that is what they were, though working under the protection of the Crown!
Weapon on the roof. (See FIG. 2, 3, 4 and 5)
In this case the fact that the alleged weapon was placed on the roof of the car, is itself highly questionable.
Why? Because it could not possibly have been put there by the target because the witness reported he was fatally injured when he was physically pulled from the driver's seat. So the gun must have been retrieved from somewhere and placed there by a policeman or someone else!
This could not be done without contaminating and changing the crime scene, as its original location is compromised as is the matter of fingerprints and DNA on it. It is quite contrary to all normal procedures and standing orders as introduces doubt as to the part the weapon played in the operation. Indeed whether it belonged to the victim and was somewhere in the car or if it had been 'planted' on the roof?
The least damaging inference we can draw is it was done to be picked up by media cameras to influence public opinion about the necessity and style of the operation - a highly questionable motive.
Why? Because it could not possibly have been put there by the target because the witness reported he was fatally injured when he was physically pulled from the driver's seat. So the gun must have been retrieved from somewhere and placed there by a policeman or someone else!
This could not be done without contaminating and changing the crime scene, as its original location is compromised as is the matter of fingerprints and DNA on it. It is quite contrary to all normal procedures and standing orders as introduces doubt as to the part the weapon played in the operation. Indeed whether it belonged to the victim and was somewhere in the car or if it had been 'planted' on the roof?
The least damaging inference we can draw is it was done to be picked up by media cameras to influence public opinion about the necessity and style of the operation - a highly questionable motive.
Number of shots fired?
As we have seen there is some disagreement by witnesses over the shots fire. The number ranges from 5 to 10. It can be explained in a number of ways. Can the photo images clarify the issue?
FIG 5 below shows one perspective of the car and altogether five bullet holes. Two in the rear window and three in the off-side body panel. To this must be added the shots that smashed the two off-side windows so that makes a minimum of seven bullets.
It is possible that one of those was the fatal shot and no more than two shots entered through the side windows but this is highly unlikely given the charged situation and the fact that there was undoubtedly more than one shooter (two or more?)
It is possible that one of those was the fatal shot and no more than two shots entered through the side windows but this is highly unlikely given the charged situation and the fact that there was undoubtedly more than one shooter (two or more?)
So just from that one image we may conclude at least seven shots were fired and probably several more. Note that all the shots appear to come from the rear right quarter. There appear to be no bullet holes on the other two sides.
This virtually rules out the possibility that any effort was given to engaging the target or asking him to surrender. Why? Because given the intelligence of a hand gun in the car, the operation would have progressed quite differently unless the intended and planned outcome was to open fire as soon as the car was stopped - an approach that could only end in death.
This is a very chilling conclusion about the police tactics.
This virtually rules out the possibility that any effort was given to engaging the target or asking him to surrender. Why? Because given the intelligence of a hand gun in the car, the operation would have progressed quite differently unless the intended and planned outcome was to open fire as soon as the car was stopped - an approach that could only end in death.
This is a very chilling conclusion about the police tactics.
Having said that, the location of the bullet holes in rear screen and side body panels is puzzling to say the least, because fired from the rear quarter, none of them could be aimed at the driver sitting the driver's seat. They seem to indicate panicked and incompetent firing. Maybe they were intended just to terrorise and stun the occupant before the car was approached and he was shot at close range through the side windows? But if he was terrorised, why the fatal shots when they approached the driver's door?
Position of Body
If the intention all along was to kill the driver, how does the description of pulling him from the vehicle and attempting resuscitation, fit? In fact the Sun reported he was pulled through the broken window. Some reports state that the shooters were "gathered around the car and firing 5 - 10 shots through the window". It is hard to reconcile these accounts either with the location of the visible bullet holes, the open driver's door or what might be expected in such a situation. We have learnt to be wary of over-reliance on broadcast witness statements.
What is clear from the available images however is glass fragments and what appears to be blood on the road surface immediately outside the driver's door. If he was mortally wounded when "dragged" from the car and bled in this spot, the question naturally arises how and why did he end up prostrate in a location next to the kerb behind the black unmarked police vehicle as shown in FIG 6. on his back, feet facing towards his car?
If it is accurate that immediately upon being pulled from the car, officers started resuscitation techniques quickly abandoned when it was clear he has succumbed to irreparable injury, it is obvious his body must have been moved by police or ambulance personnel to the location shown in the photograph - perhaps a distance of 5 -8 metres. (See FIG 7.)
Given the fact that the road had been closed to traffic there was obviously no safety reason for moving the body. This must have been for purposes of convenience and to make sight by cameras more difficult. However the conclusion is inescapable that this was another example of interfering with a crime scene for whatever reason.
Once it was clear that the person had been killed, he should have been left undisturbed in that location for photographs and any other necessary forensic evidence to be collected. Again we note that it was highly trained experts in such matters that broke the rules. It also makes the need for the protective tent rather ludicrous as this did not represent the location where he died. Its only purpose could be to hide the body from the cameras!
By comparing photographs of the scene. it is also possible to come to the rather startling conclusion that the blue and white tent does not approximate to where the body lay after it was moved.
The blood staining on the road surface suggests the man was first dragged or crawled about three metres diagonally from the driver's door after which it was presumably carried to the position we observe it in FIG. 6 below. However by careful comparison between this and FIG. 7 it can be seen the body and the blue tent are in different locations. FIG. 6 shows clearly the body lies to the left of the imaginary diagonal line that can be drawn between the rear offside and front nearside wheel of the black BMW. FIG. 7 shows the blue and white tent in front of the BMW so we must conclude that either the body has been removed from the scene or moved again inside the tent.
There appear to be no images of the body being removed or a time check for that.
Lack of Information (Secrecy?)
Position of Body
If the intention all along was to kill the driver, how does the description of pulling him from the vehicle and attempting resuscitation, fit? In fact the Sun reported he was pulled through the broken window. Some reports state that the shooters were "gathered around the car and firing 5 - 10 shots through the window". It is hard to reconcile these accounts either with the location of the visible bullet holes, the open driver's door or what might be expected in such a situation. We have learnt to be wary of over-reliance on broadcast witness statements.
What is clear from the available images however is glass fragments and what appears to be blood on the road surface immediately outside the driver's door. If he was mortally wounded when "dragged" from the car and bled in this spot, the question naturally arises how and why did he end up prostrate in a location next to the kerb behind the black unmarked police vehicle as shown in FIG 6. on his back, feet facing towards his car?
If it is accurate that immediately upon being pulled from the car, officers started resuscitation techniques quickly abandoned when it was clear he has succumbed to irreparable injury, it is obvious his body must have been moved by police or ambulance personnel to the location shown in the photograph - perhaps a distance of 5 -8 metres. (See FIG 7.)
Given the fact that the road had been closed to traffic there was obviously no safety reason for moving the body. This must have been for purposes of convenience and to make sight by cameras more difficult. However the conclusion is inescapable that this was another example of interfering with a crime scene for whatever reason.
Once it was clear that the person had been killed, he should have been left undisturbed in that location for photographs and any other necessary forensic evidence to be collected. Again we note that it was highly trained experts in such matters that broke the rules. It also makes the need for the protective tent rather ludicrous as this did not represent the location where he died. Its only purpose could be to hide the body from the cameras!
By comparing photographs of the scene. it is also possible to come to the rather startling conclusion that the blue and white tent does not approximate to where the body lay after it was moved.
The blood staining on the road surface suggests the man was first dragged or crawled about three metres diagonally from the driver's door after which it was presumably carried to the position we observe it in FIG. 6 below. However by careful comparison between this and FIG. 7 it can be seen the body and the blue tent are in different locations. FIG. 6 shows clearly the body lies to the left of the imaginary diagonal line that can be drawn between the rear offside and front nearside wheel of the black BMW. FIG. 7 shows the blue and white tent in front of the BMW so we must conclude that either the body has been removed from the scene or moved again inside the tent.
There appear to be no images of the body being removed or a time check for that.
Lack of Information (Secrecy?)
To date, no further details have been given about the operation, what units were involved, and why it was considered necessary to shoot dead the driver rather than arrest him safely. We do not know who the dead man is or his background but this is likely to be revealed in due course. We are told it was not a terrorist related incident at least, though no less serious for that. Hopefully between the the police and the IPCC they will get to the bottom of why a young man (presumably from the little visual information we have) lost his life at the hands of policemen sworn to protect it.
Issues to do with notification and timing.
The following account is from the most recent I can find. Note how now both West Mercia AND Avon and Somerset are said to have received phone complaints about seeing a driver pointing gun at (him, her, them?) at 8.30 am at Junction 11 whilst presumably travelling south-bound on the M5.
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/bristol-police-shooting-portishead-m5-latest-witnesses-saw-driver-gun-hour-before-shot-dead-ipcc-a7973471.html)
"A driver was seen “pointing at a gun at another motorist” on the M5 an hour before a man was shot dead by armed police, it has emerged.
"West Mercia Police said their officers received a call at 8.30am on Wednesday, saying the alleged gunman was near junction eight of the motorway.
"Meanwhile, Avon and Somerset Police had also received calls from “concerned” people travelling on the M5 who reported seeing a man in a car with a handgun.
"The alert was sent to the central motorway police group (CMPG), which informed Gloucestershire Police of a vehicle “in which a man appeared to be pointing a gun at another driver”.
The lack of clarity is obvious here. Was/were the original complaint(s) made to the the Gloucester and Avon emergency rooms via 999 call and thence to the Central Motorway Police Group (CMPG), or the other way around?
It is also not clear what actually provoked the call(s) or how many made them. It is important to note no shots had been fired so it is difficult to assess the level of danger, but not, one would think, to necessitate shooting the person on sight without opportunity to submit.
It is 39 miles between Junction 11 (Gloucester) and Junction 19 (Portishead). Including the stop location we may say 40 miles between where he was said to be seen with a gun at 8.30 and where he was stopped at 9.30. So the average speed could not be easier to calculate: 40 mph.
This is very hard to believe isn't it? A young man, presumably with a chequered past and aware that he had probably been spotted with a gun, tootling along the motorway all the way from Gloucester to Bristol at only 40 mph? An average speed on congested normal roads, but a man in a hurry on an unobstructed motorway? Never. Unless of course he stopped off at one of the two service stations on the way?
Neither of these explanations appear to fit a gun waving desperado do they, leaving us to wonder if the police story is the 'whole truth and nothing but the truth'?
A very BIG unanswered question: Who did the shooting?
Apart of the marked police vehicle that appears to have driven in front of the red Suzuki to stop it, at least three unmarked high powered vehicles were involved - two of which remain on scene and one goes missing, presumably to carry off the individuals directly involved.
Now the big issue is to what police force or unit were these individuals and vehicles attached. It has certainly not been revealed in any report. I have a feeling that it is unlikely to have been either the Gloucestershire or Avon and Somerset forces although I could of course be wrong.
Could they in fact have been part of the Central Motorway Police Group? The problem with this, is that if we can believe Wikipedia here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Motorway_Police_Group) its responsibility only reaches to the Gloucestershire border (between Junction 8 and 9) let alone the Somerset area. Was it given permission to extend its reach into constabulary areas not included in the group. Obviously if the vehicles and officers were part of this group, they are now heavily armed and trained.
However if it was not the CMPG it begs the question who they really were and what enforcement organisation they actually worked for. If it was some other outfit it raises profound questions as to why and how they became involved and their terms of operation? If it was not conventional policemen and constabularies that were involved we are justified in asking if the Government now operates essentially assasination squads on the roads of Britain and to whom they are answerable.
It is noted that much emphasis is placed on the fact that an investigation is being carried out by the IPCC but this organisation is actually dependent on the police force for all elements of it. As an homicide took place withing the area of the Avon and Somerset force, one would expect to dispassionately and fairly investigate the circumstances. Police officers are rightly unable to act outside the law in such matters, and are empowered to use deadly force if they or the public are at imminent risk. If not they should be subject to the same procedures as any other person who kills someone.
That they appear not to be in this case is cause for great concern as it means policemen are now able to shoot people dead on the flimsiest of pretexts. That is not the sort of policing we need or want.
So government, please inform us how many individuals were involved in this operation, who they were employed by and what are their terms of reference?
LATEST UPDATE. 28.9.2017
The Mirror is now reporting that, "A man armed with a handgun had threatened another motorist before armed officers shot him dead in dramatic M5 police chase." Note the suggested provocation has moved up a gear from members of the public just "seeing" the gun , to "being threatened" by it.
The IPCC appears to have reinforced this enhanced explanation by issuing the following statement: "We have been advised that officers were responding to reports of a man travelling on the M5 with a handgun and that he had threatened another motorist.” They added that the gun found at the scene, "appears to be a non-police issue firearm."
They give no indication of the make and model of the gun; where and how it was discovered; or how it found its way onto the roof, for all to see. From distant indestinct photo images it appears to be a semi-automatic pistol approximating to Glock 22 or similar make.
The statement adds: "At this stage we are currently investigating the circumstances of the incident and no individual police officer is under investigation."
The Sun newspaper adds this: "IPCC investigators are also attending post incident procedures where the officers involved are expected to provide their accounts in connection with the incident. The IPCC will oversee the procedure where any police firearms involved will be examined to determine whether they were discharged and, if so, how many times.
What appears to be a non-police issue firearm was found at the scene and will also be subject to examination. Enquiries continue to formally identify the deceased and his next of kin. Trained IPCC family liaison managers will then make contact with them to explain our role and the investigation. HM Coroner has been informed and a post mortem is due to take place tomorrow (September 28). IPCC investigators are checking for relevant CCTV and body worn video footage. " (See: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4557932/bristol-police-shooting-m5-motorway-driver-dead-handgun/)
From this we gather, if it can be relied upon, that the identity of the dead man was not known when they followed and subsequently followed him? Surely not?
The media and IPCC, it would seem, sees nothing disturbing or alarming in police carrying out this sort of operation on British highways, with virtually no attempt to explain or justify the circumstances!
As of 12.30 pm 29.9.2017 there still appears to be no further information regarding the circumstances surrounding the fatal shooting or victim.
UPDATE as of 14: 45 1.10.2017
The following are extracts from the Bristol Evening Post report dated 29.9.2017 here: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/three-police-forces-now-being-556815
Note subtle changes to the police account relating to time of initial complaint (now 8.40 am - ten minutes later); what happened (now "threatening another motorist"); where it occurred (now Worcestershire 50 miles distant instead of 40); who received the initial call (now not the Avon and Somerset force but the CMPG who passed it on to both Gloucester and Avon)
If the initial incident was fifty miles distant in Worcestershire, it could not have been as the police were previously quoted as being at Junction 11. These changes in the storyline would increase the average speed calculation because instead of 40 miles in an hour it is changed to 50 miles in fifty minutes. But it also makes it more questionable why it would take so long to stop the vehicle?
It appears that it was the West Mercia that was the first Constabulary to be notified which presumably passed it to the CMPG as a constituent member of that group. It still does not explain of course why vehicles of the CMPG continued beyond its operational boundary, or why the tracking of the vehicle was not handed over to the Goucester and/or Somerset forces, particularly as no 'hot persuit' was involved.
"A spokesman for Gloucestershire police said: "At about 8.40am on Wednesday morning, Gloucestershire Constabulary was informed by the Central Motorway Policing Group (CMPG) that it had received a report of a vehicle travelling along the M5 in which a man appeared to be pointing a gun at another driver.
An IPCC spokesman said: "We have received a referral from West Mercia Police in relation to a report they received from a member of the public prior to the incident near Portishead.
An IPCC spokesman said: "We have received a referral from West Mercia Police in relation to a report they received from a member of the public prior to the incident near Portishead.
"The member of the public made the report to West Mercia Police. This information was then passed to Gloucestershire Police. We are assessing the referrals to see what, if any, involvement we should have in investigating the West Mercia and Gloucestershire response to that report."
"A spokesman for Avon and Somerset police said: "The officers involved have not been suspended.""
Does this indicate that the shooters were members of the Avon and Somerset force or was the spokesperson speaking for other forces like the CMPG?
"Earlier today the IPCC confirmed a post-mortem examination of the dead motorist's body had been carried out by a Home Office pathologist. The man's family has been informed of his death but his identity has not yet been revealed."
"IPCC Commissioner Cindy Butts said: "It's important to say at this stage that we are currently investigating the circumstances of the incident and no individual police officer is under investigation.""
The question here is of course, how could the IPCC investigate an incident in which officers shot dead a member of the public without investigating the them unless it was intended to be a less than thorough investigation? Also, now the family has been informed, what is the reason for the delay in releasing the victims identity and how long will the delay persist?
Does this indicate that the shooters were members of the Avon and Somerset force or was the spokesperson speaking for other forces like the CMPG?
"Earlier today the IPCC confirmed a post-mortem examination of the dead motorist's body had been carried out by a Home Office pathologist. The man's family has been informed of his death but his identity has not yet been revealed."
"IPCC Commissioner Cindy Butts said: "It's important to say at this stage that we are currently investigating the circumstances of the incident and no individual police officer is under investigation.""
The question here is of course, how could the IPCC investigate an incident in which officers shot dead a member of the public without investigating the them unless it was intended to be a less than thorough investigation? Also, now the family has been informed, what is the reason for the delay in releasing the victims identity and how long will the delay persist?
FIG. 1. A silver Audi estate?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4557932/bristol-police-shooting-man-dead-dragged-window-latest
FIG. 2. The scene on the road into Portishead, North Somerset where a man was apparently shot by police. CREDIT: FRANCIS HAWKINS / SWNS
FIG. 3. Ariel side view of targeted red Suzuki.
FIG. 4. Ariel view (front)
FIG. 5. What appears to be a gun is visible on the roof of the car full of bullet holes CREDIT: FRANCIS HAWKINS / SWNS
FIG.6. Ground shot showing elements of the deceased victim beyond unmarked police vehicles.
Credit: South West News Service
FIG. 7. Ariel shot showing victims car and tent covering body of driver.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/720x405/p05hdfzy.jpg
FIG. 8. Personnel and helicopter on scene after the event.
http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article11245139.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/SWNS_PORTISHEAD_SHOOTING_01.jpg
FIG. 9. The following image shows just two vehicles remaining when most of the other police cars, including the one in front of the red Suzuki, have departed the scene. This indicates that these contained the indivuals who carried out the shooting. It does not appear from other images that they remained on scene and it is likely they were carried away immediately after the operation in other police vehicles. The road is still closed and two temporary structures are visible: the white one on the left where the victim lay and the blue one on the right - presumably temporary police administration accommodation.
http://images.archant.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.5212353.1506518244!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg
FIG. 10. An armed officer, probably uninvolved in the shooting, on scene taking video images it would appear. Another forensic investigator is also shown photographing in the direction of the prostrate victim.
FIG. 11. The dark suited grey haired man on the left - presumably a plain clothed senior police officer or representative of the IPCC?
http://i1.bristolpost.co.uk/incoming/article541003.ece/ALTERNATES/s1227b/Portbury-2.jpg
FIG. 12. Ambulance, helicopter and first marked police car still on scene in addition to the two unmarked police vehicles.
http://i2.bristolpost.co.uk/incoming/article540548.ece/ALTERNATES/s1227b/WhatsApp-Image-2017-09-27-at-113054jpeg.jpg
FIG. 13. Close-up of victim's car.
UNIVERSAL NEWS AND SPORT (EUROPE)
FIG. 14. Strangely there is no mention of this unit on the Avon and Somerset Police web site, although images exist of the same or similar vehicles parked in Bath and elsewhere. Is it a police or private organisation. A google search revealed nothing
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4557932/bristol-police-shooting-m5-motorway-driver-dead-handgun
FIG. 15. This image appeared in the Daily Mirror. Strangely in this no attempt has been made to blur the registration mark which poses the question as to whether it has been photo shopped accordingly? However my 'guesstimate' from other less clear images was quite close which suggests the number plate is genuine and accurate.
Possible registration plates? Earlier best guesses.
WX66 CXB black BMW
Victims car is V52 KEV or V52 KEW (THE LATTER STILL AVAILABLE FOR SALE APPARENTLY)
Silver BMW LM2 OR LW2?C10? Actually LB12 CJO (SEE ABOVE)
SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS WX58 HEJ
https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/nintchdbpict000357704424-e1506964735677.jpg?strip=all&w=811
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/03/15/44F7D5F200000578-0-Spencer_Ashworth_has_been_named_as_the_driver_shot_dead_by_polic-a-53_1507040281603.jpg
Business connections for Spencer Ashworth
https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/nintchdbpict000357704424-e1506964735677.jpg?strip=all&w=811
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/03/15/44F7D5F200000578-0-Spencer_Ashworth_has_been_named_as_the_driver_shot_dead_by_polic-a-53_1507040281603.jpg
TRANSPORT COMPANIES.
TERENCE DUNNE
Based in 7 Limewood Way, Leeds LS14 1AB Stanbridgeford Logistics Ltd is classified as a Private Limited Company with 08947996 Companies House Reg No. It's been established three years ago. This enterprise's principal business activity number is 49410 and has the NACE code: Freight transport by road. 2016-03-31 is the last time when account status updates were filed.
Terence Dunne is the following enterprise's individual director, that was chosen to lead the company in 2017. The following company had been presided over by Thomas Longden (age 30, from Leeds) till 2017-03-13. Additionally a different director, namely Terence Dunne, age 72 from Leeds quit in 2014.
Thomas Longden is the professional with significant control over the firm, owns over 3/4 of company shares. This professional (a British national born in 1987) was registered as a PSC and can be reached in Leeds at Limewood Way, LS14 1AB, West Yorkshire.
Tutnall Achievements Ltd 's been on the British market for 3 years. Started with Registered No. 09317057 in 2014, the company is located at 27 Burydale, Stevenage SG2 8AU. The firm's classified under the NACE and SiC code 53201, that means Licensed carriers. November 30, 2016 is the last time when the accounts were filed.
We have 1 managing director now controlling this firm, specifically Mohamed Faied who's been doing the director's responsibilities for 3 years. This firm had been controlled by Terence Dunne (age 72, from Leeds) till 2017-06-22. Additionally another director, specifically Christopher Jamieson, age 52 from Castleford quit on 2017-04-21.
Mr Mohammed Morad Jirari is the professional with significant control over the firm, owns over 3/4 of company shares. This professional (a British national born in 1968) was registered as a PSC and can be reached in Stevenage at Limewood Way, Green Dragon Lane, SG2 8AU, West Yorkshire.
Wavendon Premier Ltd has existed in the business for two years. Started with registration number 09520919 in the year 2015, the company is based at 7 Limewood Way, Leeds LS14 1AB. The enterprise's SIC code is 53201, that means Licensed carriers. 2016-04-30 is the last time account status updates were filed.
For almost one year, this particular business has only been guided by one director: Terence Dunne who has been presiding over it since Mon, 20th Mar 2017. For two years Prince Mkhize, age 39 from London had been functioning as an MD for the business until the resignation on Mon, 20th Mar 2017. As a follow-up a different director, including Terence Dunne, age 72 from Leeds quit two years ago.
Mr Terence Dunne is the professional with significant control over the firm, owns over 3/4 of company shares. This professional (a British national born in 1945) was registered as a PSC and can be reached in Leeds at Limewood Way, LS14 1AB, West Yorkshire.
Director of multiple companies here: http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/terence-dunne-3
Former Appointments
| Company | Role | Appointed | Status | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AIREVIEW LOGISTICS LTD | Director | 19 Mar 2014 | Resigned (27 Mar 2014) | More Details | Checked 1 Oct 2017 Recheck now | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| APPERKNOWLE TRANSPORT LTD | Director | 3 Jun 2014 | Resigned (16 Sep 2014) | More Details | Checked 1 Oct 2017 Recheck now | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ASHINGDON LOGISTICS LTD | Director | 26 Mar 2014 | Resigned (28 Mar 2014) | More Details | Checked 1 Oct 2017 Recheck now | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BARLBOROUGH HAULAGE LTD | Director | 24 Mar 2014 | Resigned (31 Mar 2014) | More Details | Checked 1 Oct 2017 Recheck now | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BARTLOW VENTURES LTD | Director | 11 Aug 2015 | Resigned (9 Nov 2015) | More Details | Checked 15 May 2017 Recheck now | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BILSTHORPE HAULAGE LTD | Director | 18 Mar 2014 | Resigned (9 Apr 2014) | More Details | Checked 1 Oct 2017 Recheck now | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BOSSINGTON TRANSPORT LTD | Director | 24 Oct 2014 | Resigned (10 Nov 2014) | More Details | Checked 3 Aug 2017 Recheck now | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BOWLEY PRECISION LTD | Director | 13 Nov 2014 | Resigned (11 Feb 2015) | More Details | Checked 31 Aug 2017 Recheck now | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BROADOAK AFFLUENCE LTD | Director | 19 Nov 2014 | Resigned (31 Mar 2015) | More Details | Checked 1 Sep 2017 Recheck now | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CASTLETOWN TRANSPORT LTD | Director | 21 Mar 2014 | Resigned (9 Apr 2014) | More Details | Checked 1 Oct 2017 Recheck now | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| COLDHATTON TRANSPORT LTD | Director | 24 Oct 2014 | Resigned (7 Nov 2014) | More Details | Checked 4 Aug 2017 Recheck now | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CONEYTHORPE LOGISTICS LTD | Director | 27 Mar 2014 | Resigned (2 Apr 2014) | More Details | Checked 1 Oct 2017 Recheck now | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CRAMLINGTON TRANSPORT LTD | Director | 7 Nov 2014 | Resigned (3 Dec 2014) | More Details | Checked 18 Sep 2017 Recheck now | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| DEBDEN LOGISTICS LTD | Director | 27 Mar 2014 | Resigned (1 Apr 2014) | More Details | Checked 1 Oct 2017
|
Business connections for Spencer Ashworth
CARDINGTON TRANSPORT LTD
Company number 08990518
| 14 Jun 2017 | Registered office address changed from 52 Phoenix Way Portishead Bristol BS20 7JX United Kingdom to 7 Limewood Way Leeds West Yorkshire LS14 1AB on 14 June 2017 |
View PDF (1 page)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14 Jun 2017 | Termination of appointment of Spencer Frederick Ashworth as a director on 5 April 2017
|
